Einstein - Why Socilaism

[Malachi151]

http://www.monthlyreview.org/598einst.htm

Selected quotes:

"For example, most of the major states of history owed their existence to conquest. The conquering peoples established themselves, legally and economically, as the privileged class of the conquered country. They seized for themselves a monopoly of the land ownership and appointed a priesthood from among their own ranks. The priests, in control of education, made the class division of society into a permanent institution and created a system of values by which the people were thenceforth, to a large extent unconsciously, guided in their social behavior.

But historic tradition is, so to speak, of yesterday; nowhere have we really overcome what Thorstein Veblen called "the predatory phase" of human development. The observable economic facts belong to that phase and even such laws as we can derive from them are not applicable to other phases. Since the real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development, economic science in its present state can throw little light on the socialist society of the future."

"It is evident, therefore, that the dependence of the individual upon society is a fact of nature which cannot be abolished..."

"The time—which, looking back, seems so idyllic—is gone forever when individuals or relatively small groups could be completely self-sufficient. It is only a slight exaggeration to say that mankind constitutes even now a planetary community of production and consumption."

"The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labor—not by force, but on the whole in faithful compliance with legally established rules."

"Insofar as the labor contract is "free," what the worker receives is determined not by the real value of the goods he produces, but by his minimum needs and by the capitalists' requirements for labor power in relation to the number of workers competing for jobs. It is important to understand that even in theory the payment of the worker is not determined by the value of his product."

"Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights."

"Production is carried on for profit, not for use. There is no provision that all those able and willing to work will always be in a position to find employment; an "army of unemployed" almost always exists. The worker is constantly in fear of losing his job. Since unemployed and poorly paid workers do not provide a profitable market, the production of consumers' goods is restricted, and great hardship is the consequence. Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all. The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions. Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals which I mentioned before."

"I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals."

"The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?

Clarity about the aims and problems of socialism is of greatest significance in our age of transition. Since, under present circumstances, free and unhindered discussion of these problems has come under a powerful taboo, I consider the foundation of this magazine to be an important public service."

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

That Einstein was a socialist proves one thing, and one thing only -- being a brilliant physicist doesn't necessarily translate into brilliance in other areas.

The problems Einstein mentioned are real; what he didn't realize, or refused to acknowledge, is that socialism doesn't really solve them -- or rather, it solves them at such a tremendous cost to economic efficiency that everyone ends up being worse off. The best way to solve the problems engendered by the market is to regulate the market, not to do away with market altogether.

The goal should be not socialism, but the tempering of capitalism with democratic oversight and control.

 

[Charles Livingston]

Victor,
Well said, I am a huge fan of einstein but very opposed to socialist type government, although I am very uninformed of political science so surely my views are a bit underdeveloped and sometimes misinformed.

 

[subgenius]

The man's opinion is worthy of consideration.
To me socialism is economic democracy.
I don't care how others define it or practice it.

 

[Malachi151]

More into on Eisntein:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/FBI/Reclaiming_Einstein_Legacy.html

In his book The Einstein File, Fred Jerome explains why and how J. Edgar Hoover's FBI put together an 1800 page dossier on the greatest scientist of the time. Nominally about the past, his account contains important lessons for everyone living in the US today, and for many people elsewhere. First of all, Einstein advocated antimilitarism, internationalism, and socialism, causes that Hoover considered repugnant. But the scientist didn't just harbor "unpopular" opinions; he actively and openly supported the causes he believed in. For example, he served as Honorary Chairman of the War Resisters League, was on the National Committee of the Friends of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade, and vigorously backed Henry Wallace's 194S Progressive Party presidential campaign.

Some of the FBI's inquiries were similarly divorced from reality. The Bureau spent years searching for Einstein's son, Albert Jr., since agents claimed he was being held as a hostage in Russia. The search was made more difficult, Jerome explains, "by the fact that no such person existed." Another goal of the FBI probe was to establish a connection between Einstein and the British atomic spy Klaus Fuchs, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Years later this "intelligence," although thoroughly discredited by the Bureau s own investigators, was still being distributed by Hoover to other agencies. Using the Freedom of lnformation Act, Jerome has chronicled the massive malfeasance, which included wiretapping, the interception of mail, and information from unreliable sources, including Hoovers pals in Nazi Germany. Taken together, it's enough to make a civil libertarian cringe.

As he wrote in 1949, Einstein understood that it is difficult for the individual to make intelligent use of his political rights because power is concentrated in a few hands that "inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education)." Einstein certainly attempted to make his political views public. Yet he is renowned for theories people don't understand, while his political beliefs remain little known to this day. The mass media, uncorrected by fellow-scientists or historians, have successfully sterilized his image. Chosen as "Person of the Century" by Time, he was described as a "kindly, absentminded professor...wild halo of hair, piercing eyes." According to a Nova special, "Einstein Revealed," he was an "other-worldly genius."
Most mainstream media don't even acknowledge that Einstein had a political life.
But Jerome properly describes it. Einstein, he writes, was "a man who never stops trying, never stops working to bring about liberty, equality, and fraternity for everyone, not just those who can afford to pay." If exposure of Hoover's once-secret files, perhaps abetted by a growing alternative media movement open to progressive ideas, creates a new awareness of Einstein's political convictions and courageous activism, that could certainly be called poetic justice.

http://foia.fbi.gov/einstein.htm

An investigation was conducted by the FBI regarding the famous physicist because of his affiliation with the Communist Party. Einstein was a member, sponsor, or affiliated with thirty-four communist fronts between 1937-1954. He also served as honorary chairman for three communist organizations.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

From www.rationalrevolution.net

This war really is about everything, and if you don’t think so then please keep reading.

Well, I do think so.. So I didn't bother to read anymore...

 

[no one in particular]

Greeting, subgenius.

The man's opinion is worthy of consideration.

Certainly, as is everyone’s…to a point. However, this seems to me like asking Stephen Hawking his opinion on baseball. He may have some witty and insightful things to say about it, but I am not going to draft his suggested players or place my bets (if I made them) on his suggestions. Hmm…now I am picturing Stephen Hawking as a commentator…

To me socialism is economic democracy.

I have seen you make that comment before (I think) and was wondering your rationale for it. I believe that Capitalism, via the free market, is more akin to a democracy. Whereas, I have the right to vote via my income that I get to keep on the products or services that I enjoy and wish to support. Perhaps you are equating the equality of democracy with the (theoretical) equality of socialism? I apologize if you have made this argument in the past, and if you have please point me to the thread.


Oh, by the way, I have a Bob worshiper at my place of employment. She has a little red subgenius card printed out and tacked to her wall. Odd thing is…I think she is serious…

 

[Cain]

I have seen you make that comment before (I think) and was wondering your rationale for it.

Since I too believe socialism is economic democracy, I'll reply.

I believe that Capitalism, via the free market, is more akin to a democracy. Whereas, I have the right to vote via my income that I get to keep on the products or services that I enjoy and wish to support.

That's not a true democracy, though. In a democracy everyone is equal; one man, one vote. The economic capitalism you describe is one dollar, one vote. In an earlier thread, I described how a majority of our perfectly good grain is fed to animals while others starve (because people in rich countries prefer meat). But we could look at how funds for research and development in the pharmaceutical industry gets distributed. Funds are allocated in a way that can companies can meet effective demand. So rationally self-interested corporations would much rather produce vaccines and cures for diseases and problems afflicting people in rich countries rather than poor. We could save lives of people dying in Africa, or invest in a miracle hair loss pill (or one for impotence, obesity, whatever).

On the micro level, Noam Chomsky yesterday speaking on C-span pointed out that the term "socialism" has been molested from any meaning. However, he says, we could define it the way factory works did a century ago: the people working in the mills ought to own them.

And there are plenty of different types of socialism: market socialism, centrally planned, bioregionalism, parecon, syndiclism, and so on. But fundamentally, I think economic democracy captures the core idea best. Dictionaries often define it as "when the workers own and control the means of production themselves." (I'm assuming that if workers truly own and control it themselves, then they would institute a democracy. Compare and contrast this with the Soviet Union for example).

Under capitalism the means of production are owned and controlled by the few. Everyone else sells their labor to the capitalist in exchange for a wage. How do capitalists come to own the plot of land that their factory rests? How did others come to own the raw materials that were used to construct the factory? That is to say, what are the origins of property?

I have never seen a plausible explanation. Instead I hear others say, "Certain people have property and others do not. Don't ask questions, that's just the way it is."

 

[Malachi151]

I believe that Capitalism, via the free market, is more akin to a democracy.

Free-market capitalism is nothing like democracy. Free-market capitalism IS economic anarchy. Its might makes right, the law of the jungle, only the strong survive, etc.

You have no choice in a free-market actually.

To understand this you have to understand determinism. In a free-market capitalism economy all decisions are dictated by power.

We don't have a free-market here, which is why we have some choice. In a true free market all power quickly becomes consolidated and choices are quickly weeded out through competition to were everything becomes a monopoly. This is what was happening in early America, which is why we moved away from a free-market, becuase it was destructive and anti-democratic.

 

[corplinx]

You have no choice in a free-market actually.

This is the single most brilliant thing I have ever heard. How in the world can you find time to post on this board with all the economics panel discussions you must be invited to?

 

[Tony]

You have no choice in a free-market actually.

If you have no choice in a "free-market", then the markets isnt free, is it?

 

[The Fool]

If you have no choice in a "free-market", then the markets isnt free, is it?

I'm not sure you understand, but that appears to me to be the exact point that malachi was making.

When is a market "free"? When there is no anti monopoly restrictions? Would the software market be "free" if microsoft was "free" to put all competition out of business? Or is is more "free" when controls ensure the big players cannot wipe out the small.

 

[The Fool]

This is the single most brilliant thing I have ever heard. How in the world can you find time to post on this board with all the economics panel discussions you must be invited to?

think about it again eh? we could "free up" the software market completely and in a very short time you would have the choice of microsoft or microsoft. It is the "unfree" market that favours consumer choice.

1st world countries want global free trade so they will not be restricted in going into developing countries, snuffing out their developing industries by agressive anti-competative action. (hey, its a free market...they can do that)

 

[corplinx]

think about it again eh? we could "free up" the software market completely and in a very short time you would have the choice of microsoft or microsoft. It is the "unfree" market that favours consumer choice.

A long, long time ago in a country called Finland, Linus Torvalds created something called Linux.

The problem with monopolies is that they tend to not be innovative. Any economics 101 class teaches that non-natural monopolies are not all-powerful. There achilles heel is the fact that an innovative upstart can become a threat in a short time (much shorter even in this era of JIT logistics and internet connectivity).

 

[The Fool]

A long, long time ago in a country called Finland, Linus Torvalds created something called Linux.

The problem with monopolies is that they tend to not be innovative. Any economics 101 class teaches that non-natural monopolies are not all-powerful. There achilles heel is the fact that an innovative upstart can become a threat in a short time (much shorter even in this era of JIT logistics and internet connectivity).

And the only reason that Linux still exists as a viable operating system is because is competitors have not been allowed (by evil socialist restrictions) the "freedom" to freeze them out of the marketplace. Your utopian ideal of a "free" market requires people to voluntarily be fair.....think that is realistic?


:edited for atroshus spelling

 

[corplinx]

And the only reason that Linux still exists as a viable operating system is because is competitors have not been allowed (by evil socialist restrictions) the "freedom" to freeze them out of the marketplace. Your utopian ideal of a "free" market requires people to voluntarily be fair.....think that is realistic?


:edited for atroshus spelling

You obviously don't read the trade rags. Microsoft has sued all sorts of monopolistic practices to keep Linux out of computer OEMs. Microsoft hasn't been fair in the least.

 

[The Fool]

You obviously don't read the trade rags. Microsoft has sued all sorts of monopolistic practices to keep Linux out of computer OEMs. Microsoft hasn't been fair in the least.

Feel free to patronise me if it helps but ...yes, I do read the trade rags, I'm in the trade. Have I been imagining all the bits about Microsoft being regulated and disciplined for anti-competitive actions?

Its would be too easy for Microsoft to make its pc operating systems only talk to its server systems...that would take them ten minutes. Given a "free market" there would be no choice in a very very short time. It is only market restrictions that are slowing the process. Please tell me one major business that runs anything other than windows on its PCs, other operating systems have a "drop in the ocean" market share and it is falling even from that low figure. Unix clones still have a significant slice of the server market, I'm fairly confident that if they didn't have court action to fear that Microsoft could snuff that out in no time.

Imagine a little fruit and veg store opens near one of the big players. In a free market the big player would send someone around, get their prices and then set theirs lower, even if they are selling at a loss. They don't care because they have the financial muscle to take the loss while they destroy this little upstart, then the prices climb back to their previous comfortable monopoly level. Is that the goal of a free market, or is it reasonable to have controls that say you cannot deliberately sell at a loss in order to choke out competition? ooops, that sounds like a regulated market, so it must be wrong eh?

 

[no one in particular]

Greetings, Cain. I very much appreciate your thorough and well written response. Your response is not unlike what I expected, as you may have thought from my guess as to why subgenius equated socialism with democracy. I am very apprehensive about getting into a discussion that I will admit is essentially over my head. There are many folks here far more adept to argue capitalism-v/s-socialism, your self, shanek and Victor Danilchenko, for example, than I am. However, this is not really a capitalism-v/s-socialism debate; it is a “does socialism equal economic democracy” debate. And, as such, I will give it a go. I am certain that I will be educated by the experience. And, honestly, this Einstein was a socialist thread is silly and needs a good hijacking.

That's not a true democracy, though. In a democracy everyone is equal; one man, one vote. The economic capitalism you describe is one dollar, one vote.

I will relent that the “one dollar, one vote” concept seems weighted to the wealthy. However the point of the free market is that anyone can achieve the goal of having more dollars, more votes. At the onset, it is an equal playing field. Whereas, in a socialistic society there is no motivation to improve your number of votes; you are already equal by virtue of having been born. What motivation does an individual have to be productive when there is no chance to improve his position? I realize that this is an extremely basic question.

In an earlier thread, I described how a majority of our perfectly good grain is fed to animals while others starve (because people in rich countries prefer meat). But we could look at how funds for research and development in the pharmaceutical industry gets distributed. Funds are allocated in a way that can companies can meet effective demand. So rationally self-interested corporations would much rather produce vaccines and cures for diseases and problems afflicting people in rich countries rather than poor. We could save lives of people dying in Africa, or invest in a miracle hair loss pill (or one for impotence, obesity, whatever).

I assume you are saying that since profit is the motivator behind business, the folks that are unable to afford the products that the business produce are of no concern to the to the business. I guess that is a fair statement. Compassion is the motivator behind helping individuals and money, not compassion is the drive of business. However, in a free market, charity is in the compassion business. If folks were not paying the high taxes of quasi-socialism/capitalism then charity would have a much better chance at success.

On the micro level, Noam Chomsky yesterday speaking on C-span pointed out that the term "socialism" has been molested from any meaning.

First off, oy, Noam Chomsky? The gentleman, by his own admission, does not have answers, just questions. I wish I could make a living asking questions. Perhaps I should claim that my questions are as good as Noam Chomsky’s and suggest that he should share his income with me. Do you think he would go for that?

However, he says, we could define it the way factory works did a century ago: the people working in the mills ought to own them.

Why? Was it the intellectual property of the those workers that started this mill? Did their work lend to the generation of capitol that purchased the property or the equipment for the mill?

And there are plenty of different types of socialism: market socialism, centrally planned, bioregionalism, parecon, syndiclism, and so on. But fundamentally, I think economic democracy captures the core idea best. Dictionaries often define it as "when the workers own and control the means of production themselves." (I'm assuming that if workers truly own and control it themselves, then they would institute a democracy. Compare and contrast this with the Soviet Union for example).

Why use the Soviet Union as an example? Why not all proletarian economies that have made an unsuccessful attempt at pure socialism?

Under capitalism the means of production are owned and controlled by the few. Everyone else sells their labor to the capitalist in exchange for a wage.

Wrong, everyone is a capitalist selling their product or ability to their internal or external customer.

How do capitalists come to own the plot of land that their factory rests? How did others come to own the raw materials that were used to construct the factory? That is to say, what are the origins of property?

Well, as a capitalist, I came to own my private property through the generation of capitol, that I then transferred to another capitalist in exchange for his property. However, your question is much more philosophical than my answer. And, of course, since I am paying high NY property taxes to the state so that children who are not mine can become future capitalists, I do not truly own my land. So, that is a moot point, on my part, not yours. The origins of property are: I killed this goat, I will eat it. I planted and grew this fruit tree with my labor, if you want some of my apples, you must give me some of the oranges that you labored to produce. I got to this cave first, I will keep it.

I have never seen a plausible explanation. Instead I hear others say, "Certain people have property and others do not. Don't ask questions, that's just the way it is."

Fascinating, I have never heard anyone suggest that others should not ask questions in a free market. I doubt I have given a “plausible explanation” that you will accept. Also, it does appear that I have argued capitalism v/s socialism. Oops.

 

[no one in particular]

Free-market capitalism is nothing like democracy. Free-market capitalism IS economic anarchy. Its might makes right, the law of the jungle, only the strong survive, etc.

What, you think I may respond to you while you willfully ignore me in this thread?

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

Cain

That's not a true democracy, though. In a democracy everyone is equal; one man, one vote. The economic capitalism you describe is one dollar, one vote.

That's very true; but we have seen no indication that "economic democracy" can scale up enough to be viable at state level. I would love to live in a world where we have "market socialism" -- free market with all participants being worker-controlled cooperatives; but I don't think such an economic vision is practical.

In an earlier thread, I described how a majority of our perfectly good grain is fed to animals while others starve (because people in rich countries prefer meat).

Well, that's simply irrelevant. meat-producing agriculture and all, we still waste trememdnous amounts of crops. What makes you think that more of the excess crops would reach the needy if we had more to spare?

The problem is not the our argiculture doesn't produce enough, but that its production is not being distributed well.

But we could look at how funds for research and development in the pharmaceutical industry gets distributed. Funds are allocated in a way that can companies can meet effective demand. So rationally self-interested corporations would much rather produce vaccines and cures for diseases and problems afflicting people in rich countries rather than poor.

Yup. And this is why we have tax/transfer infrastructure, publically funded research, and welfare state -- we are mitigating the problems of pure capitalism with regulations and social control. It's a much more economically efficient solution than straight socialism.

On the micro level, Noam Chomsky yesterday speaking on C-span pointed out that the term "socialism" has been molested from any meaning.

that's true; it has become a term of abuse. Most people who use the terms "socialism" and 'communism", have no clue about what those words mean.

How did others come to own the raw materials that were used to construct the factory? That is to say, what are the origins of property?

I have never seen a plausible explanation. Instead I hear others say, "Certain people have property and others do not. Don't ask questions, that's just the way it is."

Well, the simple and true explanation is that ultimately, property was simply a claim of power -- ability to control and defend something. that does not, however, mean that we would be better off if we set out to rectify those "past wrongs" by expropriating property and redistributing it fairly. Zimbabwe is in dire straights now because they tried just that.

Ultimately, a measure of economic inequality is justifiable on grounds of economic efficiency; we the society should control how much inequality we have, though.